Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Well you wouldn't get that many actual Orthodox in there if you did - I think I could count the number of people I've known who have called themselves 'Eastern Orthodox' on one hand (not sure I'd actually need two fingers, to be honest). It tends to be something other people call us (exactly like other people call all of you Roman Catholic, and I know you don't like that).

True, I don't like that -- because the Orthodox use it as a set-up to then say that we ECs must not really be Eastern.

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Well you wouldn't get that many actual Orthodox in there if you did - I think I could count the number of people I've known who have called themselves 'Eastern Orthodox' on one hand (not sure I'd actually need two fingers, to be honest). It tends to be something other people call us (exactly like other people call all of you Roman Catholic, and I know you don't like that).

True, I don't like that -- because the Orthodox use it as a set-up to then say that we ECs must not really be Eastern.

And I don't like Eastern Orthodox because plenty of westerners (Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, though more often the latter) use it to portray us as an ethnic faith which is inherently geographically limited and certainly not Catholic. I'm not sure that you should really use the one (except to distinguish between EO and OO as appropriate) and complain about the other.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I wonder if it would be worth my while to start a petition, at a Catholic forum that I participate on, for them to deem "Eastern Orthodox" to mean anyone who calls themselves that, whatever-the-hell they might really be.

Well you wouldn't get that many actual Orthodox in there if you did - I think I could count the number of people I've known who have called themselves 'Eastern Orthodox' on one hand (not sure I'd actually need two fingers, to be honest). It tends to be something other people call us (exactly like other people call all of you Roman Catholic, and I know you don't like that).

True, I don't like that -- because the Orthodox use it as a set-up to then say that we ECs must not really be Eastern.

And I don't like Eastern Orthodox because plenty of westerners (Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, though more often the latter) use it to portray us as an ethnic faith which is inherently geographically limited and certainly not Catholic. I'm not sure that you should really use the one (except to distinguish between EO and OO as appropriate) and complain about the other.

James

But that is the reason I use "Eastern Orthodox". You guys decided that "Orthodox" without qualifier includes also the "Miaphysite Orthodox" who reject 4 ecumenical councils.

P.S. I don't know whether you're a participant on a certain Catholic internet forum that I'm thinking of; but I think it is interesting that one of the most common opinions that Orthodox have about said forum is that it ought to have an "Eastern Christianity section" rather than an "Eastern Catholicism section".

I can undertand what they do that. I used to run a PlayStation gamers forum and we have one section just called "Other Gaming Platforms" which lumps together the XBox, Wii, PC, and all the other non-Sony consoles both current and past. CAF is a Catholic forum, so anything that is "other" gets lumped together, how unfair that may sound. And it is against their apologetic nature to just lump ECs and EOs together regardless of how much we say our theology is the same (or nearly identical, however one wants to phrase it). Of course they want to differentiate those loyal to the Pope and those who are schismatics

P.S. I don't know whether you're a participant on a certain Catholic internet forum that I'm thinking of; but I think it is interesting that one of the most common opinions that Orthodox have about said forum is that it ought to have an "Eastern Christianity section" rather than an "Eastern Catholicism section".

It did have an "Eastern Christianity" section but after we were kicked off without a good reason, they changed it over to Eastern Catholic.

I used to run a PlayStation gamers forum and we have one section just called "Other Gaming Platforms" which lumps together the XBox, Wii, PC, and all the other non-Sony consoles both current and past. CAF is a Catholic forum, so anything that is "other" gets lumped together, how unfair that may sound.

That analogy would work if it were called "the Non-Catholic Christians sections", but it isn't. It's "the Non-Catholic Religions section". So to make your analogy fit better, expand "Other Gaming Platforms section" to "Other Electrical Devices section".

sedevantist calls himself "Roman Catholic," when he isn't claiming he's the only "Catholic."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

meh, they recognize baptism by Muslims, so doesn't mean much. Nonetheless, a striking admission that the UGCC's theology is Latin.

Btw, are the Pidhirtsi Fathers coming to the next "Orthodox-Catholic" meeting for Ukraine?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If I offended anyone, I apologize. But they should explain where I am wrong.

LOL. Talk about open ended questions that you don't want answered.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That I believe Jesus gave the keys to Peter orJohn 21:15-17that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep

And St. Paul tells all the bishops in Asia (and in general) that the Holy Spirit appointed them for that (Acts 20:28).

St. Peter mentions your interpretation: II Peter 3:16

[/quote]

you write "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)"

so according to your logic Jesus couldn't have told Peter to rule his sheep in John 21 because of what Jesus told Peter in Matt 16:23?? or maybe because of John's 3 fold denial like another Orthodox had argued with me... your problem is not with me but with Christ , you question Jesus' decision making nstead of accepting Jesus' will of appointing Peter the 1st pope like a true christian would do.

(Acts 20:28 ) does not mean Jesus didn't tell Peter to rule his sheep, you have nothing

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

How can you confess and receive communion from a "heretic"?

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?

How can St. Isaac the Syrian be a saint when he was never subject to the Roman pontiff, out of the Roman communion and was in the Nestorian Church if there is absolutely no salvation ouside of the Roman Church?

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?

It seems to me that he's been asked exactly this several times in this thread and never has managed to come up with anything even approaching a coherent answer. I'm not sure he's actually managed to join the dots yet.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

That I believe Jesus gave the keys to Peter orJohn 21:15-17that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep

And St. Paul tells all the bishops in Asia (and in general) that the Holy Spirit appointed them for that (Acts 20:28).

St. Peter mentions your interpretation: II Peter 3:16

you write "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23)"

so according to your logic Jesus couldn't have told Peter to rule his sheep in John 21 because of what Jesus told Peter in Matt 16:23?? or maybe because of John's 3 fold denial like another Orthodox had argued with me... your problem is not with me but with Christ , you question Jesus' decision making nstead of accepting Jesus' will of appointing Peter the 1st pope like a true christian would do.

(Acts 20:28 ) does not mean Jesus didn't tell Peter to rule his sheep, you have nothing

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?

I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

ST. THOMAS DEFINITELY TEACHES THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE COMMUNION FROM, AND HEAR THE MASS OF, AN UNDECLARED HERETIC – THIS DESTROYS THE POSITION OF THE RADICAL SCHISMATICS

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics. St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc.

He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.” He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

How can St. Isaac the Syrian be a saint when he was never subject to the Roman pontiff, out of the Roman communion and was in the Nestorian Church if there is absolutely no salvation ouside of the Roman Church?

I don't know the specifics about St Isaac, what I do know is that the Catholic Church teaches thee is no salvation outside the church, do you believe jews can be saved?

Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590‐604: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”23

I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

We've been in the end times since the Ascension.

The Orthodox reject the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope as well as everything in Pastor Aeternus, including it being a dogma. Other than that, we acknowledge that an Orthodox bishop of Rome would be the First Among Equals of the Patriarchs.

Donatism says the priest cannot peform his priestly ministry if he has sin. But a heretic is thrown out of the Church. I guess the thing here is, is the person thrown out of the Church or not? And who gets to decide that for sedes if there is no Pope?

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

Sede, how will you elect your future Pope without any cardinal? And if you can say a Pope is not a true Pope because he is heretic, wy can't we do it as Orthodox since the 11th century?

I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

Several did-Pope Leo IX of Rome, for instance.

We don't reject the Papacy. It never existed until Old Rome went its own way, and so we never had it to reject it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

ST. THOMAS DEFINITELY TEACHES THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE COMMUNION FROM, AND HEAR THE MASS OF, AN UNDECLARED HERETIC – THIS DESTROYS THE POSITION OF THE RADICAL SCHISMATICS

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics. St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc.

He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.” He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

makes about as much sense as anything else you or Aquinas has said.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).

(I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

ST. THOMAS DEFINITELY TEACHES THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE COMMUNION FROM, AND HEAR THE MASS OF, AN UNDECLARED HERETIC – THIS DESTROYS THE POSITION OF THE RADICAL SCHISMATICS

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics. St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc.

He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.” He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

makes about as much sense as anything else you or Aquinas has said.

Who would want to receive the Holy Mysteries from a heretic?

There is some debate about St. Constantine and his death-bed conversion.Some say that the bishop who received him was an Arian heretic, while others claim that this very bishop had returned to Orthodox by that time. But this would be another discussion, and it probably has already been discussed here many times before.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Well, I can't really speak to that, as I don't know the quote you're paraphrasing, but this is interesting:

Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!)Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome).means a lot coming from someone who says Peter isn't the rock in matthew (I guess "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".)

Our new friend claims he is a real Roman Catholic too and you are not.

Thanks, I wasn't able to figure that out on my own.

[/sarcasm]

I'll assume "our new friend" is referring to me , I attend the ukranian catholic church for confession and communion, the priest is a heretic since he believes the pope is a true pope but to be clear I never said eastern catholics aren't catholic, maybe you can clear up for me how exactly the eastern catholics differ from Roman catholics, besides the use of Bizantyne liturgy which I like.

ST. THOMAS DEFINITELY TEACHES THAT ONE MAY RECEIVE COMMUNION FROM, AND HEAR THE MASS OF, AN UNDECLARED HERETIC – THIS DESTROYS THE POSITION OF THE RADICAL SCHISMATICS

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III., Q. 82, A. 9, Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?: “I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

This passage is devastating to the false theology of the radical schismatics. St. Thomas is addressing whether one may receive Communion from, or hear the Mass of, a heretic, schismatic, excommunicate, etc.

He says: “… consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.” He makes it clear – consistent with all the other facts we’ve been covering (Fourth Lateran Council, etc.) – that the absolute obligation to avoid the heretic, the excommunicate, etc. comes with the Church’s sentence being pronounced.

makes about as much sense as anything else you or Aquinas has said.

this coming from someone who says Peter isn't the rock in Matthew 16,Peter alone isn't given the keys , and the fact that Jesus tells Peter to rule his sheep in John 21 should be discounted since Paul uses the same terminology when addressing the bishops.....

I don't see a true pope being elected, we're in the end times, correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox reject the papacy, it's not just that some heretic came about in the 11 century

We've been in the end times since the Ascension.

The Orthodox reject the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope as well as everything in Pastor Aeternus, including it being a dogma. Other than that, we acknowledge that an Orthodox bishop of Rome would be the First Among Equals of the Patriarchs.

so you disagree with St Iraneus hereAgainst Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

so you disagree with St Iraneus hereAgainst Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Of course I do, note what I highlighted in red. Rome has deviated from Tradition because of the Filioque and the redefinition of the role of the Pope of Rome.

We are only to agree with Rome inasmuch as Rome preserves the Tradition. Rome deviates, we don't have to agree to anything.

Donatism says the priest cannot peform his priestly ministry if he has sin. But a heretic is thrown out of the Church. I guess the thing here is, is the person thrown out of the Church or not? And who gets to decide that for sedes if there is no Pope?

the Holy See has told us that no heretic can be accepted as the valid occupant of theHoly See (the Pope)! With the fullness of his authority, Pope Paul IV defined that anyone whohas been promoted to the Papacy as a heretic is not a true and valid pope, and that he can berejected as a warlock, heathen, publican and heresiarch.Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this OurConstitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree anddefine:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as anArchbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, ashas already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to hispromotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from theCatholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by theunanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thusacquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequentauthority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putativeenthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without needfor any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office andpower...http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf

Donatism says the priest cannot peform his priestly ministry if he has sin. But a heretic is thrown out of the Church. I guess the thing here is, is the person thrown out of the Church or not? And who gets to decide that for sedes if there is no Pope?

the Holy See has told us that no heretic can be accepted as the valid occupant of theHoly See (the Pope)! With the fullness of his authority, Pope Paul IV defined that anyone whohas been promoted to the Papacy as a heretic is not a true and valid pope, and that he can berejected as a warlock, heathen, publican and heresiarch.Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this OurConstitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We enact, determine, decree anddefine:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as anArchbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, ashas already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to hispromotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from theCatholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by theunanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thusacquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequentauthority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putativeenthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way...(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without needfor any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office andpower...http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf

Who determines if a bishop has fallen into heresy? Is it the Dimond brothers?

This thread is no longer about "Papist's criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism."

Aw, what gave it away?

Certainly, the topic has veered from Byzantine Catholicism to concerns about the validity or heresy of the most recent popes.

It was not Vatican II that drew me into Orthodoxy, but the collapse of my belief in the papacy, especially the Roman Catholic dogmas of Papal infallibility and Papal supremacy. When those came tumbling down, I knew that I could no longer receive communion in the Roman Catholic Church or even in the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church. It was over.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:27:36 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

However, the EP does not refer to the Pope as "Your infallible Holiness."In fact, no where does the EP refer to the Pope as infallible or supreme.

The Pope may be the "First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome," but he is not an Orthodox Bishop.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 11:07:51 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Nothing here is against what the Orthodox is saying. The biggest problem is that Roman Catholics always interpret "primacy" to mean supreme universal jurisdiction and infallibility. The Orthodox has always kept the original meaning of "primacy".

However, the EP does not refer to the Pope as "Your infallible Holiness."In fact, no where does the EP refer to the Pope as infallible or supreme.

The Pope may be the "First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome," but he is not an Orthodox Bishop.

This bishop at Rome is:

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth